[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Positions on SRH (was: Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization)
In article <4bdqlf$id0@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar) writes:
|> In article <4bdis2$cr4@larry.rice.edu>,
|> Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
|>
|> Don't force positions on me that I did not take.
Not at all - I can show you quotes from your own
statements supporting what I have said.
|> You are being dishonest by interpreting too much.
Once again, I can quite easily show that I am not adding
anything to what you have said.
|> >Well, so what are some of the things the reorg proposal entails:
|> >a) more groups
|> >b) more moderators
|> >c) agreements between the moderators
|> >
|> >You have agreed to the unmoderated talk group.
|>
|> I don't feel the need, but if you propose it, I won't oppose it.
|> There is a world of difference in our positions, It can not be called
|> an agreement.
In response to
>Several people have pointed out the need for an unmoderated
>Hinduism newsgroup. This is what we have proposed.
You said, and I quote
"OK. Lets have a talk.religion.hinduism but we don't have to change
the current set-up of s.r.h for that."
This looks like you agree to the unmoderated group, does it not?
As for the "world of difference", it does not matter _why_ you want
to see trh, it just matters that we agree on it.
|> >You have agreed to more moderators
|>
|> Again, I don't feel the need but if many people feel then I think
|> Ajay should be allowed to pick 1-2 co-moderators. This is far from
|> your position involving a slate of moderators and asking Ajay if he
|> wants to join them. Unless you agree that Ajay picks 1-2 co-moderators
|> of his choice I have no agreement with you.
You contradict yourself. We both agree to more moderators. The difference
is that I want it done in an open, fair, and democratic manner, and you
seem to want it forced upon the newsgroup through an autocratic process.
I am more than willing to let the _readership_ decide, through the
RFD, on what moderators should be added. So far, it seems that you are
not willing to make the same sort of open offer.
So, yes - we disagree on _how_ the list of moderators should be
increased, but we seem to agree that more moderators are needed.
You yourself said
"I'll ask him to select a few co-moderators that he thinks
he can get along with."
Further, in response to
> i> - provisions for multiple moderators to ensure quick response and
> fairness;
You said: "Sounds fine"
So, yes, we agree that the group needs multiple moderators.
|> >You agree that the moderators need to agree on issues.
|>
|> Its for moderators to decide among themselves.
We agree that they need to decide, but the methods differ. I prefer
an open manner, where the moderators _tell the readership in advance_
how they will decide upon things. This is how the RFD handles the
situation. Having the moderators just agree amongst themselves
in an ad-hoc manner does not bring the readership of the newsgroup
into the discussion at all. Your position seems to want to distance
the readership from the moderators, in the sense that the moderators
are the judge, jury, etc. The reorg RFD, on the other hand, is like
an agreement among peers - the moderators and the readers.
|> And it is for such easy
|> agreement that I don't support a set of moderators who have had a recent
|> conflict.
Again, the bald-faced lie.
Please show me _any_ conflict Ajay has had with the proposed moderators.
Once again, I must point out that you are trying to confuse the
issue, and I've pointed this out numerous times already. Please
consult the SRH Reorg FAQ, which explains this. It can be found at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
-Vivek
(submitted around Fri Dec 22 10:31:06 CST 1995)
References:
